Consider that we are communicating by a computer network. Who made that?
Don't limit this to networking. In computing, women were involved almost every step of the way. Hell, they were even called computers during WWII! Their entire job was to handle the brutal math behind calculating the trajectory of artillery shells. Picture entire rooms filled with women being trusted to come up with extremely accurate results in spite of human errors.
Even after ENIAC and other machines came into the picture, guess who was around to learn how to work them?
Wait a minute... Why am I telling you this? You're 75! Didn't you at least hear about all this sometime in your youth?
Anyway, don't forget Grace Hopper. She made the first compiler, which allowed computers to understand certain pidgins that we now call "high level programming languages". Stack all that on with Vexcalibur's mention of Ada Lovelace and this formidable list of women in computing. (click) Oh yeah, and a girl I tutored not too long ago also got a gig with the Navy. She was sharp, and she did not need many sessions with me... She knew what she was doing.
But what do I know? "That's the exception that proves the rule", right? _________________ "Sex, streams, friends accessing private members... Either I am just discovering unintentional innuendo or Stroustrup is a pervert."
Joined: Oct 17, 2009 Age: 45 Posts: 5754 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 3:12 pm Post subject:
Unless you can intelligently incorporate cultural and economic bias into the discussion, you cannot draw meaningful conclusions.
Yes men and women score, on average, differently on IQ tests. But until you can normalize the tests for cultural bias, you can't pretend that the IQ test is an objective measure of anything except the ability to take tests.
Yes, there are more men in mathematics and theoretical physics. But there are also more male poets and novelists. Surely if ratios of employment were determinative, then we would be forced to the conclusion that men are better verbal thinkers than women, too. But the IQ tests tell us that they are not.
So why, then, are we falling prey to the confirmation bias inherent in the statement, "there are more male mathematicians, therefore men are better at math."
This has little to nothing to do with cognitive skill, and much to everything to do with economic opportunity. _________________ --James
you were the only person to mention discrimination or cultural indoctrination on this thread, so i am not sure who you are shouting at.
Very old frustration. Any questions?
just two: CAN YOU DIAL IT DOWN A NOTCH? AND CAN YOU STOP YOURSELF FROM RE-INTRODUCING OLD ARGUMENTS? _________________ on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5043493.html#5043493
Unless you can intelligently incorporate cultural and economic bias into the discussion, you cannot draw meaningful conclusions.
Yes men and women score, on average, differently on IQ tests. But until you can normalize the tests for cultural bias, you can't pretend that the IQ test is an objective measure of anything except the ability to take tests.
Yes, there are more men in mathematics and theoretical physics. But there are also more male poets and novelists. Surely if ratios of employment were determinative, then we would be forced to the conclusion that men are better verbal thinkers than women, too. But the IQ tests tell us that they are not.
So why, then, are we falling prey to the confirmation bias inherent in the statement, "there are more male mathematicians, therefore men are better at math."
This has little to nothing to do with cognitive skill, and much to everything to do with economic opportunity.
Please read the stuff that I have posted here.
There is scientific evidence that gonadal steroids have a measurable effect on performance in tasks involving certain aspects of spatial reasoning and verbal memory, and there is evidence that they also impact divergent versus convergent thought processes.
I have provided the concrete, authentic, falsifiable evidence that you are claiming, here, there is a deficit of. Now, I agree that most people who comment on either side of the issue are profoundly lazy, and they never contribute anything tangible or falsifiable to the discussion. I am one of those people, though, who have busted their asses to comprehend this issue, as well as many others, having read thousands of pages of authentic material on it. Try actually reading my citations. They are interesting.
Last edited by WilliamWDelaney on Wed May 02, 2012 4:08 pm; edited 1 time in total
you were the only person to mention discrimination or cultural indoctrination on this thread, so i am not sure who you are shouting at.
Very old frustration. Any questions?
just two: CAN YOU DIAL IT DOWN A NOTCH?
Okay.
Quote:
AND CAN YOU STOP YOURSELF FROM RE-INTRODUCING OLD ARGUMENTS?
I was hoping that, if I repeated them enough times, someone would realize they were there. And they are actually fairly earth-shattering arguments in that I have provided rock-solid citations for them, and I don't see anyone else here doing that. What I see is a lot of ignorant people spouting a lot of ignorant rhetoric and disproven bull crap, and I think I am justified in being a little pissed off over it.
you were the only person to mention discrimination or cultural indoctrination on this thread, so i am not sure who you are shouting at.
Very old frustration. Any questions?
just two: CAN YOU DIAL IT DOWN A NOTCH?
Okay.
Quote:
AND CAN YOU STOP YOURSELF FROM RE-INTRODUCING OLD ARGUMENTS?
I was hoping that, if I repeated them enough times, someone would realize they were there. And they are actually fairly earth-shattering arguments in that I have provided rock-solid citations for them, and I don't see anyone else here doing that. What I see is a lot of ignorant people spouting a lot of ignorant rhetoric and disproven bull crap, and I think I am justified in being a little pissed off over it.
no, there is no justification for being pissed at someone over an internet argument (if someone broke the rules it would be different). you are entitled to your feelings of course, but you are not entitled to start yelling at them or being inflammatory/provocative towards then. if they are pissing you off, leave the debate. _________________ on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp5043493.html#5043493
you were the only person to mention discrimination or cultural indoctrination on this thread, so i am not sure who you are shouting at.
Very old frustration. Any questions?
just two: CAN YOU DIAL IT DOWN A NOTCH?
Okay.
Quote:
AND CAN YOU STOP YOURSELF FROM RE-INTRODUCING OLD ARGUMENTS?
I was hoping that, if I repeated them enough times, someone would realize they were there. And they are actually fairly earth-shattering arguments in that I have provided rock-solid citations for them, and I don't see anyone else here doing that. What I see is a lot of ignorant people spouting a lot of ignorant rhetoric and disproven bull crap, and I think I am justified in being a little pissed off over it.
no, there is no justification for being pissed at someone over an internet argument (if someone broke the rules it would be different). you are entitled to your feelings of course, but you are not entitled to start yelling at them or being inflammatory/provocative towards then. if they are pissing you off, leave the debate.
Okay, I'll leave the subject in general alone for a while, so I can cool on it. Peace.
Joined: Jan 29, 2008 Posts: 5192 Location: Seattle Area
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 5:43 pm Post subject:
"There is no arguing with Delaney, for when his pistol misfires he knocks you down with the butt end of it."
What do you think William? Good historical comparison / backhanded complement? _________________ Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Joined: Oct 17, 2009 Age: 45 Posts: 5754 Location: Vancouver, BC
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 6:33 pm Post subject:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Please read the stuff that I have posted here.
There is scientific evidence that gonadal steroids have a measurable effect on performance in tasks involving certain aspects of spatial reasoning and verbal memory, and there is evidence that they also impact divergent versus convergent thought processes.
I have provided the concrete, authentic, falsifiable evidence that you are claiming, here, there is a deficit of. Now, I agree that most people who comment on either side of the issue are profoundly lazy, and they never contribute anything tangible or falsifiable to the discussion. I am one of those people, though, who have busted their asses to comprehend this issue, as well as many others, having read thousands of pages of authentic material on it. Try actually reading my citations. They are interesting.
But what do they tell us?
They tell us that in mice, castration impacts delayed spatial memory access, but does not affect spatial reference memory (among others). Androgen replacement recovered long term (>24h) spatial memory performance, but had no impact on 1hr retention.
This suggests that while (in mice) androgens affect spatial memory performance, that effect is in a narrow area of memory performance (specifically, short-term spatial memory); it contrasts with impacts in other species (different observations have been made on rats); and--most importantly for this discussion--it does not present a generalized cognitive benefit.
Furthermore, the methodology used in the study does not serve to distinguish between relative concentrations of androgens in male and female subjects. Women's bodies produce naturally occuring androgens, and there is nothing to demonstrate that their concentration is insufficient to trigger the same performance impacts as the higher concentration in males.
Similarly, estrogens are equally capable of inducing structural change in the brain, and given the ability of androgens and estrogens to convert into each other, isolating impacts is extremely difficult.
But what this really tells me is that you have limited your research to abstracts, and do not really understand the science underlying the studies. You are drawing inappropriate conclusions from the research.
If you want to tell me that male brains and female brains are different, I will agree with you unreservedly. But if you want to tell me that sex differences between male and female brains have demonstrable variances in cognitive performance, then you are going to find me far less receptive to your argument. _________________ --James
Given that IQ tests are the most established means of quantifying intelligence, and given that men as a group score higher on IQ tests than women, then it follows that men (still as a group, remember) are more intelligent than women.
IQ tests are the most established method of testing the ill-defined quantity of intelligence, in the sense that they are least crappy. The conclusion doesn't follow.
Quote:
I don't understand why this is sexist.
It's not sexist, just incorrect. _________________ "A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
Joined: Jan 31, 2011 Age: 23 Posts: 5022 Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,
Posted: Wed May 02, 2012 7:34 pm Post subject:
bizboy1 wrote:
Generally, people who score low or would score low tend to try to invalidate the tests. This is usually done to make them feel better.
and the same can be said in reverse order.
anyone that gives them value doe so because they score highly on them.
so far i think we barely know what intelligence is,
then there is all the external and internal factors, thought pattern for one, it doesnt matter how fast your neurons fire if they are firing in the wrong place, so to speak. _________________ //through chaos comes complexity//
the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.
